|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:I posted things which would be common knowledge if you looked at the crosstabs of any poll or paid attention to how she is covered at all in the mainstream, you glorious idiot. If I yell that you're dishonest for twenty years you'll start to seem untrustworthy too. If you can't muster up the critical thought required to notice when you're being propagandized to you don't get to playact at being a Serious Man About Politics. Go away.
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
"Hillary's a bad candidate because the media and Republicans have been throwing poo poo at her for twenty plus years and she's gotten into a bunker mentality. Also did I mention she's not very "personable" like Obama." But apparently pointing out that's a bad way to judge a candidate is haram.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:I posted things which would be common knowledge if you looked at the crosstabs of any poll or paid attention to how she is covered at all in the mainstream, you glorious idiot. Overcoming several decades of baseless rumors is a challenge not a flaw.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:One side hasn't held as many press conferences as the press likes but still talks to them all the time, the other literally said that press that is mean to him will be banned once he is president then had their cameras cut and takes the press passes anyway from anyone who dare speak ill of him. Yeah but we expect that from Trump because he's a crass millionaire real estate mogul who isn't even trying to run a serious campaign. Nothing to worry about here everyone, he'll do fine. But Clinton is trying to be a serious candidate who can be trusted to govern competently and transparently so this is all very troubling from her. Think twice before you vote for that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:She and her husband unfortunately give off an incredibly ungenuine, prototypical politician vibe that while being unreflective of them as actual human persons turns a lot of people off. Her cool relationship with the press makes them even more willing to dig up any poo poo story they can find to bludgeon her with. She, unfortunately, has been tarred with scandal for years and years despite it being bullshit. She's not super personable or charming as a speaker or public figure, either. A very postmodern post. Competence doesn't matter, ability to govern doesn't matter, whether there's actually fire to go with the smoke doesn't matter. All that matters is a surface appearance, a perception carefully generated by political opponents for 25 years and helped along by blatant misogyny and America's deep and abiding love for moronic conspiracy theories. Candidates who have good optics are good candidates, and candidates that don't, are bad. Nothing else matters. Dehumanize yourself and face to optics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That isn't you said, duder. What, do you want me to write it out? Here, I'll help you: "In my opinion, since she has very obvious disadvantages as a candidate that others may not due to popular public perception and media coverage she would not qualify as a good candidate. It is my belief that such problems are dragging down poll numbers that otherwise should be (much) better considering she is running against Sarah Palin level opposition. This has no bearing on whether or not she is or would be a good president or person." Do you want me to disclaim every post I make with "in my opinion" so it's clear I'm not arguing fact?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:Republicans have been working on that for the better part of 20 years now. I'd say the facade has worn off slightly. In Hillary 's darkest hour, Bill will drop the sax. *Several mins before midnight on a certain Nov. night* B : You said I could play when your numbers got lower enough but they never went that low can I- H: Go crazy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Jesus, I'm voting for Hillary this election, but why is it so hard for people to acknowledge she might not be a great candidate? She voted to give a chimpish moron the tools to start the loving Iraq war, which rightfully should be a pretty big shitstain on her career.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:What, do you want me to write it out? Here, I'll help you: Oh we're all pretty clear you're not arguing fact, don't worry. InnercityGriot posted:Jesus, I'm voting for Hillary this election, but why is it so hard for people to acknowledge she might not be a great candidate? She voted to give a chimpish moron the tools to start the loving Iraq war, which rightfully should be a pretty big shitstain on her career. That is an incredibly misinformed and childish idea of what happened, so maybe you and Debs can go start your own he-man woman-haters party and we could have a few brief moments' respite from the OPTICS  argument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:What, do you want me to write it out? Here, I'll help you: So to be a "good candidate" one must be well liked by everyone? That's the only qualifier to be a Good Candidate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Oh we're all pretty clear you're not arguing fact, don't worry. Next time learn how to comprehend what you're reading before you make posts like this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Are you really arguing a former president who has had 20%+ net favourable opinion ratings for the last 10 years appears 'ungenuine' to the electorate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
InnercityGriot posted:Jesus, I'm voting for Hillary this election, but why is it so hard for people to acknowledge she might not be a great candidate? She voted to give a chimpish moron the tools to start the loving Iraq war, which rightfully should be a pretty big shitstain on her career. It's wickedly dumb to talk about "how bad of a candidate she is" because "the media doesn't wike her."
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Bill doesn't come off as non-genuine because of past scandals. The vibe you feel is him slipping way out of touch with modern society. Hilary on the other hand does come off as non-genuine as a result of past scandals. In that, she tries to insulate herself from scrutiny by putting up as many walls as she can between her public and private lives as a result of feeling under siege by conservatives for the past 30 years. And that makes her seem secretive which comes off publicly as she's hiding or faking something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:Next time learn how to comprehend what you're reading before you make posts like this. Aw babby wants an argue. What happened to that world-weary rationality, Mr. Optics?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:It's wickedly dumb to talk about "how bad of a candidate she is" because "the media doesn't wike her." D&D would be a ghost town if it didn't talk about that every given moment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:So to be a "good candidate" one must be well liked by everyone? That's the only qualifier to be a Good Candidate? In America? I'd say that your ability to project an image of yourself is more important that anything substantive, yes. Or are we arguing that Americans actually make decisions based on cold hard fact, now? I would think the Democratic primary and the visceral hatred for Clinton from the Bernie quarter (despite her policy prescriptions) would make this somewhat obvious to you of all people. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Aw babby wants an argue. What happened to that world-weary rationality, Mr. Optics? You're legit boring.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Like I said earlier in this thread today, I would personally prefer her to be more transparent and more accessible to the gaggle -- even if I think they're bunch of whiny babies. And yes, her base "unfavorables" are something that you'd ideally not want to see, but I also don't think they really matter that much. It's the same dumb argument that says that, if only Marco Rubio or John Kasich where the nominee, she'd be losing. Eugene V. Dabs posted:In America? I'd say that your ability to project an image of yourself is more important that anything substantive, yes. Or are we arguing that Americans actually make decisions based on cold hard fact, now? I would think the Democratic primary and the visceral hatred for Clinton from the Bernie quarter (despite her policy prescriptions) would make this somewhat obvious to you of all people. I think the visceral hatred for her from the "Bernie quarter" is rooted in them buying into thirty years of Republican propaganda. I don't think that makes her, inherently a "bad" or "flawed" candidate. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:In America? I'd say that your ability to project an image of yourself is more important that anything substantive, yes. Or are we arguing that Americans actually make decisions based on cold hard fact, now? I would think the Democratic primary and the visceral hatred for Clinton from the Bernie quarter (despite her policy prescriptions) would make this somewhat obvious to you of all people. Don't move the goalposts now, Serious Guy. The question is liked by everyone. You're slinging republican conspiracy theories against her, so obviously your ideal candidate would be equally loved by both sides of the aisle and never have a bad word said about him. Let's not pretend there's any "her" that would meet your very serious and rational objective likability criteria.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:It's wickedly dumb to talk about "how bad of a candidate she is" because "the media doesn't wike her." Right, but let's not act like there aren't legit reasons people would claim she's a weak candidate, her Iraq war vote makes her look either naive or politically craven and she used some really lovely rhetoric to describe black men in the nineties.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Like I said earlier in this thread today, I would personally prefer her to be more transparent and more accessible to the gaggle -- even if I think they're bunch of whiny babies. And yes, her base "unfavorables" are something that you'd ideally not want to see, but I also don't think they really matter that much. I disagree on your last part. Especially against Kasich who thanked women for leaving the kitchen to vote for him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
InnercityGriot posted:Right, but let's not act like there aren't legit reason people would claim she's a weak candidate, her Iraq war vote makes her look either naive or politically craven and she used some really lovely rhetoric to describe black men in the nineties. The first is a somewhat more valid criticism, though we've largely already adjudicated the Iraq War and any of your other options, politically, either made the same decision or had the luxury of not making it at the time. The second however: she said a line once, in a speech she didn't write and no one watched -- the line about super predators. No one ever gave a poo poo about that till now and she disavowed it completely. DemeaninDemon posted:I disagree on your last part. Especially against Kasich who thanked women for leaving the kitchen to vote for him. lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
InnercityGriot posted:Jesus, I'm voting for Hillary this election, but why is it so hard for people to acknowledge she might not be a great candidate? She voted to give a chimpish moron the tools to start the loving Iraq war, which rightfully should be a pretty big shitstain on her career. Now let me tell you how cool Diamond Joe is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Any takes on Obama refusing to meet that dirtbag Digong?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Don't move the goalposts now, Serious Guy. The question is liked by everyone. You're slinging republican conspiracy theories against her, so obviously your ideal candidate would be equally loved by both sides of the aisle and never have a bad word said about him. Let's not pretend there's any "her" that would meet your very serious and rational objective likability criteria. Do you legit absorb any of the words you read, or even post, or do you just mash on a keyboard whenever you feel a pinch of annoyance? I have made absolutely no value judgments against Clinton or any of the so-called scandals that have dogged her. I have merely pointed out that partially due to history and partially due to her public persona that she is vulnerable where other candidates (such as Obama) may not be. I'm not condemning her on the basis of Republican propaganda or saying that she needs to be universally loved to be a "good candidate". All of this exists in your head. I merely think that due to the confluence of "flaws" in her candidacy, that she is not a good candidate - in my eyes. If you want to seriously discuss why those things don't matter then please, proceed. But otherwise snappy one-liners and your usual flailing bullshit isn't going to do much to foster a serious conversation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
the media have been unfavorable to Hillary, and she has obvious tangible and intangible deficiencies beyond optics, and she is the best remaining candidate. None of these clauses are incompatible with the other and none of them are false (imo)
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton is not the most amazing candidate of all time but she was the best we could ask for this election unless you thought Ryan Chaffe or Martin o'Malley were better. Or the guy who bragged about killing a Vietcong in Nam.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:the media have been unfavorable to Hillary, and she has obvious tangible and intangible deficiencies beyond optics, and she is the best remaining candidate. Ayup. Shimrra Jamaane posted:Hillary Clinton is not the most amazing candidate of all time but she was the best we could ask for this election unless you thought Ryan Chaffe or Martin o'Malley were better. I agree she is the best candidate we had. Whether or not that necessarily makes her a good candidate is up for debate, I feel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Meanwhile: http://current.org/2016/09/npr-to-debut-new-interview-podcast/
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The first is a somewhat more valid criticism, though we've largely already adjudicated the Iraq War and any of your other options, politically, either made the same decision or had the luxury of not making it at the time. I suppose the second point I'll concede, but not having to make the decision she made still looks better than having made the wrong decision. Also, we just had eight years of a president who didn't vote for the war, and she ran against a dude in the primary who didn't vote for it either, so it's not like it was some impossible political decision, she made a choice which rightfully or wrongfully solidifies people's opinions of her being two-faced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
In non-election/non-media news: It looks like we won't be getting a "No First Use" pledge from Obama.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
InnercityGriot posted:I suppose the second point I'll concede, but not having to make the decision she made still looks better than having made the wrong decision. Also, we just had eight years of a president who didn't vote for the war, and she ran against a dude in the primary who didn't vote for it either, so it's not like it was some impossible political decision, she made a choice which rightfully or wrongfully solidifies people's opinions of her being two-faced. Her vote on the war shouldn't make you think she's "two-faced" unless you're a complete idiot. Put's in to question her judgement --- fine. I am not going to get drawn into a whole debate on the war issue -- we've done it to death here -- but I'll say, generally, that I don't think that's a real issue for most voters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think the visceral hatred for her from the "Bernie quarter" is rooted in them buying into thirty years of Republican propaganda. I don't think that makes her, inherently a "bad" or "flawed" candidate. I guess the problem with using "bad" or "flawed" is it implies some kind of value judgment, when I'm really not saying that there is any real reason for her to be a bad candidate. Assuming the media actually did its job and people hadn't bought into years of Republican propaganda, I'd say that she was a fine candidate. But I suppose my perception of the situation is considerably dimmer than yours.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think the visceral hatred for her from the "Bernie quarter" is rooted in them buying into thirty years of Republican propaganda. I don't think that makes her, inherently a "bad" or "flawed" candidate. I don't like Hillary because I don't trust her and think she is a republican lite who will continue to push policies that are damaging to the american public. I didn't like her in 2008 and the thing that clinched it for me then was when Business magazine had her on the cover with a headline reading "Big Business Loves Hillary" or something like that. That has nothing to do with "Republican propaganda," my opposition to her was primarily rooted in economics, I've disliked her since her 2008 campaign, her term as Secretary of State has only exacerbated my distaste for her, and the questionable handling of the primary this year sealed the deal on me not voting for her. Once again, I'm a Bernie supporter who dislikes Hillary and it has nothing to do with "Republican propaganda." BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The second however: she said a line once, in a speech she didn't write and no one watched -- the line about super predators. No one ever gave a poo poo about that till now and she disavowed it completely. The only thing that matters in this paragraph is that she "disavowed it completely." "She only said it once" is not any sort of excuse, lol if you think she didn't read the speech before hand/edit it/approve it, and the idea that the audience is of any significant importance is laughable. If that were the case anything said on the House or Senate floor would never matter because its not like theres anyone there to hear it. Not to mention we live in the internet age where everything everyone says publicly is on the record forever. The fact that we can find out what people in power are saying when "no one's listening" should be heralded, not trivialized. Regardless, people are allowed to think she's a bad candidate. This whole forum is inundated with people who feel that way and have felt that way since she announced…in 2008. Shouting people down and chasing them away doesn't make you right, it just makes you seem belligerently ignorant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
barf also, the person whose favorability is higher usually wins the election. doesn't matter if it's 25% or 75%. So until someone clues us all in on the real point of talking about her favorability, I'm just gonna have to assume it's sour grapes about Sanders or a total lack of understanding of how US pres elections work
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Hillary a Republican lite candidate was refuted in like 7/8 uspol threads this year. Go read them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Hillary Clinton is not the most amazing candidate of all time but she was the best we could ask for this election unless you thought Ryan Chaffe or Martin o'Malley were better. Or the guy who bragged about killing a Vietcong in Nam. Honestly the best for a long while, excluding Obama arguably (and even then his first term was pretty bad). Like other than the dudes who actually became President, i can't really think of anyone would be a better candidate than Hillary in the last 35 years or so. Hell, 40 because Carter was ultimately pretty useless (dude only won his primary in 1980 because of the Iran Hostage Crisis).
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:I guess the problem with using "bad" or "flawed" is it implies some kind of value judgment, when I'm really not saying that there is any real reason for her to be a bad candidate. Assuming the media actually did its job and people hadn't bought into years of Republican propaganda, I'd say that she was a fine candidate. But I suppose my perception of the situation is considerably dimmer than yours. That's essentially my contention.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
emdash posted:barf Sounds like these Silicon Valley Marvels have successfully disrupted your digestive system!
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Sounds like these Silicon Valley Marvels have successfully disrupted your digestive system! *chugs soylent* hell yeah bitch
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:38
|
|